Shocker: NY Times Decries Laughably Incompetent Taliban Rout As "Complex Attack"

You've got to be kidding me:

The attack on Camp Salerno in Khost Province was one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan with multiple suicide bombers and a backup fighting force that tried to breach defenses on to the airport at the base. It followed a suicide car bombing at the outer entrance to the same base on Monday morning, which killed 12 Afghan workers lining up to enter the base, and another attempted bombing that was thwarted shortly after.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for all three attacks in Khost. Their spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahed, reached by telephone at an unknown location, said that 15 suicide bombers, equipped with machine guns and vests packed with explosives, with 30 militants backing them up, attacked the base, one of the largest foreign military bases in Afghanistan. He claimed that some of the bombers had gotten inside the base and had killed a number of American soldiers and destroyed equipment and helicopters. This last claim was denied by General Azimi of the Afghan military.

Suicide bombers mull about while preparing for an attack against a fortified U.S./Afghan position, receive minimal support in the form of small arms cover fire from a small band of untrained militant irregulars before helicopters chop them to bits, and this is what the Times considers a "complex attack?"

No artillery or mortar support.

No mention of any flanking attack or feints.

No mention of even minimal attempts to camouflage the suicide bombers by disguising them as civilians or base workers or members of the opposite sex.

As a matter of fact, they didn't even manage a straight ahead, mindless assault into interlocking fields of fire. They got spotted well outside the perimeter and got cut to shreds while still 1,000 yards outside the base, and the majority of the Taliban seem to have been killed as they tried to flee. Is it even fair to say they wee killed in an attack, when it appears they were blown to bits before the attack began?

Not that I'm singling out the Times for crappy coverage of the attack, The Scotsman account sounds like a Monty Python skit:

NATO troops and Taliban fighters clashed today after a group of the insurgents, backed by suicide bombers, tried to breach the defences of the main US base in south-eastern Afghanistan.

Backed by suicide bombers? I guess that is one way of making sure there will be no retreat.

The attack on the French base, by contrast, had far more deadly ramifications, with 10 French soldiers killed and another 21 wounded, but for the Times to try to inflate the importance or the complexity of the Taliban attack on Camp Salerno beyond the buffonish, ill-advised and utter failure that it was isn't simply bad reporting, but verges on making excuses for the other side.